The Great Mind of Dr. Robert J. House

This past week was spent celebrating my daughter’s 24^th birthday, continuing my work towards a grant application I am completing at work, and, of course, studying leadership! 

One of the topics I studied was the works of Dr. Robert J. House. Robert J. House was born on June 6, 1932, grew up in Toledo, Ohio, and received his Doctorate in Management from The Ohio State University in June of 1960. During his career, Dr. House held faculty appointments at The Ohio State University, University of Michigan, City University of New York, University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management, and finally, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he taught until his retirement in 2010. Dr. House passed in November, 2011 at the age of 79.

Dr. House was an innovator in the field of management and organizational behavior. According to his wife, Tessa, his passion was in his research, which I found to be evident in his contributions to the field, as he authored more than 130 journal articles, as well as many book chapters.

One of Dr. House’s many contributions to the world of leadership included the path-goal theory. The path-goal theory focuses on a leader’s ability to motive subordinates to accomplish organizational goals, and according to author Peter G. Northouse, focuses on a leader’s style and the characteristics of the subordinates and the work setting. The path-goal theory requires that a leader must understand their

organization’s needs and apply the necessary leadership style in order to solve organizational problems. The approach can be directive, where a leader assigns structured tasks and timelines to subordinates to attain goals; supportive, where a leader would tend to their subordinates well-being so they can focus on completing assigned tasks; participative, where a leader solicits suggestions from subordinates on how to solve the problem;  or achievement-oriented, where a leader would coach them to achieve their highest potential possible (similar to a football coach pushing their players to perform beyond their preconceived notions of their capabilities). Applying the appropriate leadership style in the appropriate situation will provides subordinates encouragement and confidence in their abilities, resulting in motivation and higher performance. Good stuff. No, great stuff!

In 1993, Dr. House founded and became Principle Investigator of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program. His work with them continued through 2003. The GLOBE project is a study of 62 countries and the idiosyncrasies and dimensions of each’s culture. Similar to the results from an omnibus survey, House utilized data from 1985 research to create what was known as regional clusters, classifying clusters by factors such as common language, geography, religion, and historical accounts. These clusters included:

Confucian Asia	Southern Asia	Latin America	Nordic Europe	Anglo
Singapore Hong Kong, Taiwan China South Korea Japan	Philippines Indonesia Malaysia India Thailand Iran	Ecuador El Salvador Columbia Bolivia Brazil Guatemala Argentina Costa Rica Venezuela Mexico	Denmark Finland Sweden	Canada United States Australia Ireland England South Africa (white sample) New Zealand
Germanic Europe	Latin Europe	Sub-Saharan Africa	Eastern Europe	Middle East
Austria The Netherlands Switzerland Germany	Israel Italy Switzerland (Francophone) Spain Portugal France	Zimbabwe Namibia Zambia Nigeria South Africa (black sample)	Greece Hungary Albania Slovenia Poland Russia Georgia Kazakhstan	Turkey Kuwait Egypt Morocco Qatar

            The culture within each cluster was studied and traits were defined, which resulted in the creation of cultural dimensions. The following is a brief description of each dimension, along with the high and low ranking clusters associated with those traits:

Uncertainty Avoidance: the extent a group relies on established norms and rituals to avoid uncertainty. Cluster ranked high in Germanic & Nordic Europe; but low in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Power Distance: the degree that a group expects to agree that power should be shared unequally. There were no clusters in the high category, and low in Nordic Europe.

Institutional Collectivism: the degree that a group will encourage societal collective action. Clusters ranked high in Nordic Europe and Confucian Asia; but low in Germanic & Latin Europe, Latin America.

In-Group Collectivism: the degree members express pride, loyalty or cohesiveness in their organization. Clusters ranked high in Confucian & Southern Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, Middle East; and low in Anglo, Germanic and Nordic Europe.

Gender Egalitarianism: the degree that society minimizes gender role differences and promotes equality. Clusters ranked high in Eastern and Nordic Europe; and low in the Middle East.

Assertiveness: the degree that people are determined, assertive, or aggressive in their relationships. Clusters ranking high were Eastern & Germanic Europe; low in Nordic Europe.

Future Orientation: the degree that people engage in planning, investing in the future, etc. Clusters were high in Germanic & Nordic Europe; and low in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Performance Orientation: the degree that society awards people of improved performance. Clusters ranked high in Anglo, Confucian Asia, and Germanic Europe; but low in Eastern Europe and Latin America.

Humane Orientation: the degree that society encourages altruism, generosity, caring, and kindness. Clusters ranked high in Southern Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa; low in Germanic & Latin Europe.

What can we learn from this?

The biggest lesson I received by studying this is that different cultures have different priorities and 

society norms.  As leaders, it is our responsibility to understand these differences, embrace these differences, and develop our skills and apply the appropriate leadership styles that speak to the motivators of each culture that we work with. The differences that each culture brings can make our organizations more versatile and strong. As leaders, we must understand this and promote it to come to fruition. How we do this is a question that each must answer going forward in this global workplace.

Dr. House: You were brilliant, and your contributions to leadership will be discussed, debated, and remembered forever. 

May you rest in peace.